| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#51
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Pledges of Abstinence Ineffective
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:55:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:05:54 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:32 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:33:26 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:shtvl4tjevd6lcqicqbidk0a9ga65j67q6@4ax .com... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:6msvl4d1e6c4a7hhp0qs000dm5gbvme3po@4 ax.com... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:8tivl49tkmr0pt76p07cupret6cc5kut23 @4ax.com... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6v ... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdg ... On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm ========== The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even when people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe ways. So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people time to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of the articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains, so we probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's statistically insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only about 10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all indicative of the population as a whole. You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either? In DC, for 2005: The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 years, http://tinyurl.com/75nboa Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live births, *reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other words, the problem is very under stated. Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so from a liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing. You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea. You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you have actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that claim. You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by me, which supports your claim. I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either? Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's dishonest, don't you? I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that my earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea. Good luck with that. Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's dishonest to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said. Don't you? John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for them. But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with choice of the words you used to ask it. Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have. But you got the point. The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If you disagree, explain why you asked the question. Which question? Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you) "I asked you this..." This question? "You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer?" The reason for that question was purely to solicit your opinion. This time, you left out the pathetic second question, which was the reason that both questions were lame and had no honorable purpose. Goodness, you *are* a seeker of ulterior motives. The purpose of the second was the same as that of the first. No it wasn't, John. Know any English teachers? Show the pair of questions (which you asked simultaneously) to the teacher and ask for help understanding your own intent. Actually it was. In that case, you failed in your attempt to do whatever the phuque it was you were trying to do. Yup. |
|
#52
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pledges of Abstinence Ineffective
boater wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote: Boater wrote: Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate By Rob Stein Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, December 29, 2008; A02 Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today. The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers. "Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking." The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge. "Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples." The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs. "This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active -- and most do well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves or their partners?" James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real about sex education in America." Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins. "It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001. Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use a more stringent method to account for other factors that could influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before they took the pledge. Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends' attitudes about sex and birth control. "This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense." By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried. "It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge," Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program." While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of those who had not. Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms in abstinence-focused programs. "There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control." But Huber disputed that charge. "Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the risk." snerk I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with her younger daughter. As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on other reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely to have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the average American teen. To Quot CNN: I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage pregnancy, not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age of the first marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably waiting for their partner of their first marriage. Trying to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs is a worthwhile activity. Trying to put a stop to teen sexuality is an exercise in futility and stupidity. Nice editing, WAFA. |
|
#53
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pledges of Abstinence Ineffective
On Jan 3, 7:52*pm, boater wrote:
wrote: Ever notice how the most informed folks pretend... er uh, I mean have difficulty understanding questions they don't want to answer? snerk. What I have noticed is some of the dumbest posters here get so confused in their posts that it simply is not worth the time to try to figure out what it is they are trying to say. What ARE you trying to say, dummy? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Abstinence? | ASA | |||
![John H[_8_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
